Turkey’s African opening: Limits and potential

[FAH1223]

The new scramble for Africa is a growing arena of competition among the great and rising powers in the emerging new world order. Nearly each and every regional actor strives to diversify its policies in order to reap political gains, both domestically and internationally. Turkey stands out in this regard. Ankara views Africa, with its geographical proximity, natural resources, and relatively not-yet-scrambled market, as an excellent opportunity to realize Turkey’s domestic, regional, and international aims.

The end of the Cold War and the events of September 11th have changed the foreign policy environments of states, and Turkey was inevitably influenced by that trend. The transformation started in 1998 with the ‘Opening to Africa,’ and gained momentum through 2005. Beyond a doubt, the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government took nearly all the steps for the de-securitization of Turkey’s foreign policy and created an environment to develop trade-based relations with the rest of the world, especially regions Turkey had not previously taken into consideration. The most important dimension of that policy was to strengthen its position in the region and on a global scale, both politically and financially. But as important, the AKP frequently highlighted the foreign policy change, making it an integral part of domestic politics. This policy change allowed the AKP to make domestic political gains via its success in the international arena.

Trade, religion, politics, and non-governmental sectors are the main elements of Turkey’s Africa policy. Like all rising powers, Turkey uses the language of win-win for relations and emphasizes trade instead of aid. Islam is another important leverage to generate and deepen the relations. Turkey has diversified its relations in relevant multilateral organizations; it has observer status in the African Union, non-region membership in the African Development Bank, and has taken initiative at the United Nations on African issues. Turkey has been quite active with regard to humanitarian concerns, a fact especially evident in the case of Somalia, where the rest of the world remains silent. The existence of non-governmental institutions in the continent, on the other hand, is the strongest pillar of Turkey’s position due to its broad, multifaceted efforts in health, education, and security cooperation.

Although Turkey declared 2005 as the ‘Year of Africa,’ important steps were taken in the beginning of 2009 with its non-permanent membership to the U.N. Security Council. The visits of many high-ranking officials focused on themes of trade and cooperation, while the only exceptions were efforts to enhance the situation in Darfur. During its Security Council membership, Turkey developed its engagement with the continent day by day, opening embassies and maintaining active commitments with the Turkish International Cooperation and Development Agency (TIKA) and military support for peacekeeping and anti-piracy operations. In reflection of this, observers have noted that the number of direct flights from Turkey to Africa have increased.

The Turkish Confederation of Businessmen and Industrialists (TUSKON) is another agency that spreads Turkey’s influence. Ankara’s increasing interest has resulted in an export-import boom. Turkey’s exports increased from $3.632 billion in 2005 to $9.283 billion in 2010. A similar increase took place in import figures. These trends suffered a hiccup from the Arab Spring; export numbers decreased to $7.913 billion and import numbers decreased from $4.823 billion to $3.420 billion, mostly because of the unrest in North Africa. Despite the decline in trading volume, Turkey is resolved to maintain relations with the continent and the cases of Somalia and Libya have proven great opportunities to contribute to peacemaking and peacekeeping in Africa. The drought in the Great Lakes Region, specifically in Somalia, has been another case in which Turkey has made significant contributions.

Several questions arise from the 10-year transformation of Turkey’s Africa policy: “What do all those openings mean?” “What are the limits?” “What are the pros and cons for Turkey?” “How realistic are the means and the ends?” Turkey could not resist the intensifying impact of globalization, nor should it have. It has strong motives for regional leadership, and policies that have de-emphasized security and territorial disputes in Africa policy mark initial steps by which Turkey has created a sphere of influence in Africa. Turkey is not alone: China, India, Brazil, among other rising powers have deep interests, and especially China and India have greater potentials for engagement with the continent. In contrast to China or India, Turkey, with its limited capacity, is only able to affect a few countries. For that reason, Turkey has positioned itself as a mid-scale actor on the continent, focused on humanitarian aid and cooperation in health, telecommunications, construction, and education.

Despite Turkey’s limited capacity and some problematic issues, like supporting Sudanese president Omar al Bashir (who has been indicted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes) in the international arena, it has crafted remarkable influence over African politics and markets and has used win-win rhetoric in a successful soft power campaign. Turkey aims to be a permanent actor in the region, despite the distractions of the Arab uprisings that have refocused the AKP government’s attention. Turkey’s Africa initiative will likely continue, but as the foreign ministry puts its energy toward the pressing issues of its neighboring countries, the Africa policies will fall to individual entrepreneurs and business-persons. After a forward-thinking start, this diversion of resources may handicap Turkey’s engagement, limiting its competition with Chinese, Indian, and American rivals for influence in the scramble for Africa.

Fadime Gözde Çolak is a research assistant at Ankara University focusing on Turkish involvement in Africa. She has been featured in several Turkish journals and holds a Masters in International Relations from Ankara University.

http://thejerusalemreview.com/2012/09/1 ... potential/

[DANGIRL]

They dried up every continent, so it's AFRIKA turn now.

A million Chinese farmers have joined the rush to Africa, according to one estimate, underlining concerns that an unchecked "land grab" not seen since the 19th century is under way.

Some of the world's richest countries are buying or leasing land in some of the world's poorest to satisfy insatiable appetites for food and fuel. In the new scramble for Africa, nearly 2.5m hectares (6.2m acres) of farmland in just five sub-Saharan countries have been bought or rented in the past five years at a total cost of $920m (£563m), research shows.

"Lands that only a short time ago seemed of little outside interest are now being sought by international investors to the tune of hundreds of thousands of hectares," said a recent report by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), and a London-based think tank, the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). It described the huge deals reported to date as "the tip of the iceberg".

The report said farmland purchases are being driven by food security concerns, rising demand and changing dietary habits, expanded biofuel production and interest in what is, in theory, an improved investment climate in some African countries.

In fact China, well known for its interests in minerals and oil, appears to be one of the more modest "neocolonialists" of African agriculture. Vast tracts of the continent's arable but fallow land are being bought by companies from India, South Korea, America and several oil-rich, food-poor Arab nations.

Lorenzo Cotula, senior researcher at the IIED, said: "The role of China needs a more subtle analysis. We found that in Africa, China is not one of the big players in terms of acquiring large tracts of land. There is South Korea, there are Gulf-based countries, and there are also western institutions."

Wealthy corporations have pioneered controversial African mega-farms to outsource food production and use cheaper labour. In India, such mega-farms are seen as more efficient than the traditionally small, family-run holdings throughout the country.

Indian farming companies, backed by government loans, have bought hundreds of thousands of hectares in Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Senegal and Mozambique, where they are growing rice, sugar cane, maize and lentils to feed their domestic market.

A report published in April by the International Food Policy Research Institute revealed the extent of "land grabbing" by foreign investors in Africa. Since 2006, the UK-based Lonrho corporation leased 25,000 hectares for rice in Angola; China secured 2.8m hectares for a biofuel oil palm plantation in the Democratic Republic of Congo; and Qatar leased 20,000 hectares for fruit and vegetable cultivation in exchange for funding a $2.3bn port in Kenya.

In Ethiopia alone, the report found, India invested $4bn in agriculture, including flower-growing and sugar estates; the UAE secured 5,000 hectares for tea in a joint venture with East Africa agribusiness; Germany's Flora EcoPower secured 13,000 hectares for biofuel crops; Britain's Sun Biofuels secured land for jatropha, a biofuel crop; and unknown Saudi investors leased land in exchange for $100m in investment.

In Madagascar, the South Korea's Daewoo wanted to secure 1.3m hectares to grow corn, but the deal collapsed for political reasons. In Nigeria, Britain's Trans4mation Agric-tech secured 10,000 hectares, while an unknown Chinese company secured 10,000 hectares for rice.

Sudan has also been a prime target: Egypt secured land to grow 2m tonnes of wheat annually; Jordan secured 25,000 hectares for livestock and crops; Kuwait secured a "giant" strategic partnership; Qatar set up a joint holding company to invest in agriculture; Saudi Arabia leased 10,000 hectares for wheat, vegetables, and livestock; South Korea secured 690,000 hectares for wheat; and the UAE is investing in 378,000 hectares after already securing 30,000 for corn, alfalfa, and possibly wheat, potatoes and beans.

Critics argue that countries are selling their land assets at the expense of smallhold farmers and hungry populations. The institute's report warned: "Unequal power relations in the land acquisition deals can put the livelihoods of the poor at risk. Since the state often formally owns the land, the poor run the risk of being pushed off the plot in favour of the investor, without consultation or compensation."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... -land-grab